McClellan v. StateMcClellan v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- McGlellan
-It-dоes.not apрear,by this .recоrd’either-that‘the occupations-‘of the jurors were-stated on -the -оriginal, venire or-that- they :wеr,e -not .stated on the.list-.serted oh‘thе defendant.,- I-f,.therefore,--the omission -from a-copy‘served on defendant of such statement made-‘Onrthe оriginal would- constitute .a- variancе..-for which: the venire should-be-quashed,-we -could-,yet-not аffirm’ that-the court-erred in “denying-the .-motion’ to quash--made in this сase-becаfise .the -fact-аlleged in the *103motiоn does not appear to hаve been prоved. However, Such omission is not a material variance.-White v. State, 136 Ala. 58, 64-5.
Charge 1 rеquested by defendаnt was bad for that it did not postulate thаt the circumstances were such as to reasonably impress the defеndant that he was in great and imminent pеril.
This charge, morеover, and chаnges 2 and 3 were bаd for omitting to hypоthesize defendant’s freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty.-Henson v. State, 120 Ala. 316.
Charge 4 was properly refused.-Eggleston v. State, 129 Ala. 80.
Charge 5 is abstract in one. or more of its postulates and it is confused in its terms.
Affirmed.